October Term 2000 · Docket 99-936
Did doctors violate the Fourth Amendment by testing pregnant patients for drugs?
Pregnant women sued a hospital after doctors tested their urine for drugs and arrested them.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Smith described the arrest of seven women.
Mr. Hood framed the issue as a reasonableness question.
Ms. Smith argued the tests targeted crimes.
Mr. Hood argued the tests served medical purposes.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 15-15
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case asks if medical drug tests count as illegal searches.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 13-27
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 4, 2000.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the tests declared illegal searches.
the opposing sides want the tests declared reasonable medical care.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 13-27
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the tests served law enforcement goals.
the opposing sides argue the tests served medical needs.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 13-27
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 15-15
Why it matters
This case defines the limits of medical testing for law enforcement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 13-27
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 15-15
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 13-27
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.